Prosecution must prove the age of the victim to secure conviction under relevant IPC sections; evidentiary discrepancies can lead to acquittal.

1. This appeal is heard through Video Conferencing.

2. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.01.1999 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Sessions Trial No. 429 of 1997, whereby the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under: -

3. In this case, the prosecutrix (PW - 6) and the appellant were resident of same village namely Charouda, P. S. Dharsiva, both of them are of the same caste and well known to each other.

4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 27.08.1997, Ex. - P / 17 Dehatinalishi was recorded at Village Charouda, P.S. Dharsiva by PW - 16 Laxmi Prasad Dubey, Head Constable about missing person No.11/97, in the police station Dharsiva which was recorded in Roznamcha Sanha No. 985 dated 27.08.1997 vide Ex. - P / 17C. During investigation, as per Dehatinalishi, information was received by PW - 16 Laxmi Prasad Dubey, Head Constable that the missing girl (prosecutrix) aged about 15 years had returned to her home, on which he reached village Charouda. After inquiry from the prosecutrix (PW - 6), her father Santram, her mother Ramkunwar and Suphud Ram by PW - 16, it was revealed that on 26.08.1997, appellant Manoj Kumar had kidnapped the prosecutrix on the enticement of marrying her and keeping her as wife from the lawful guardianship of her father and went to his maternal uncle at village Kodwa. On the way, the appellant committed forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix while going to Kodwa village and kept her in the house of his maternal uncle. It was also revealed that on the date of incident i.e. 26.08.1997 at about 06:30 pm the prosecutrix went to answer the call of nature and did not return home and at that time her neighbour Manoj Kumar also went missing. After inquiry of Roznamchasahna No. 985 and Missing Report No. 11/97, F.I.R. (Ex. - P / 11) was registered under S.363, S.366 and S.376 of IPC in Police Station Dharsiva by PW - 13 U.K. Chandrawanshi, Sub-Inspector against appellant Manoj Kumar.

5. The prosecutrix (PW - 6) was medically examined by PW - 14 Dr. Suniti Mangrulkar 28.08.1997 and she gave her report Ex.P / 16. As per report (Ex. - P / 16), Doctor mentioned that no sign of external injury was found on the body of the prosecutrix, no sign of injury on external genitalia was found, hymen was ruptured and opined that sexual intercourse has taken place approximate one or two days before the examination.

6. During investigation nazrinaksha (Ex. - P / 1) was prepared by Patwari Prakash Kumar (PW - 1). Admission register was seized vide Ex. - P / 8C in which the date of birth of the prosecutrix was mentioned as 11.12.1982. Spot map was prepared vide Ex. - P / 10. Photograph of the prosecutrix was seized vide Ex - D / 2. One love letter written by the prosecutrix to the appellant was seized vide Ex. - D / 3. Case diary statements of the prosecutrix (PW - 6) and her father Santram (PW - 12) were recorded by the police and the accused was arrested on 28.08.1997.

7. After completion of investigation charge - sheet was filed by the police for the offence under S.363, S.366 and S.376 of IPC . While framing the charge, the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur framed the charges against accused / appellant under S.363, S.366 and S.376 of .

8. So as to hold the accused / appellant guilty, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses i.e. Prakash Kumar (PW - 1), Gautam Ram (PW - 2), Shyamnarayan Rathore (PW - 3), Sewak Ram (PW - 4), Khediya Bai (PW - 5), prosecutrix (PW - 6), Maujiram (PW - 7), Khubchand Verma (PW - 8), Ganguram (PW - 9), Dr. S.B. Mangrulka